Craig Gaunt
Gospels & Acts
Jesus Seminar
The gospel of John has been a target for modern scholarship for many reasons, which they claim calls into doubt John’s historical value. The Jesus Seminar is no exception. Within their work, The Five Gospels they categorize nearly all of Jesus words as nearly improbably or highly improbably. In fact, the only saying that even made it to a pink rating (i.e. Jesus probably said this) is John 4:44 in which it is a citation of Jesus’ words from the other gospels, and John does not report Jesus actually speaking them here. The Seminar translates this as, “A prophet gets no respect on his own turf.”[1] Their criticisms, being nothing new to the church, focus on how John’s gospel and the three Synoptics differ, saying that both cannot be historically accurate.[2] In the Synoptics, they point out that Jesus speaks in short sayings and parables, while in John, He changes to long speeches with theological meaning. In short, the Synoptics stress ethical behavior, while John emphasizes belief in Jesus being the only way to please God and, without Him, actions are pointless. While the odds are stacked against John three-to-one, it is a huge stretch, even using some of the Jesus Seminar’s own criteria, to say that John got Jesus completely wrong and the other three only got it less wrongly. This essay aims to answer three criticisms held by a majority of liberal scholars in general and the Jesus Seminar in particular: Jesus’ speeches in John was a creation of the author’s imagination, that John has absolutely no historical value, and that John’s accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection are fabricated.
Before looking at John’s credibility as a historical gospel, it helps to know what ideas the Seminar were bringing to the table of discussion as to what counts as valid evidence; these are common traits in many schools of thought today. One is the principle of analogy, which has naturalistic assumptions. They argue that because ax heads do not float now, they could not have back then either[3] Another is the criteria of dissimilarity, which states that if Jesus said words or performed actions that did not appear in either Judaism or the early church, they are most-likely authentic. Likewise, this is used wrongly as a principle of exclusion, claiming to know what Jesus certainly did not say.[4] Not only can this form of extreme criticism not be easily defended logically, but it also actually works against the Jesus Seminar in some instances.[5] A specific case is the rejection of Luke 5:33-35 as authentic, even though it matches this criterion.[6] In a more general sense, trying to cut off someone completely from their social context and culture is impossible. Jesus grew up Jewish and when you are part of a faith tradition for most of your life some of its patterns and characteristics stay with you, even if you would try to reject them.[7] To get a completely un-Jewish Jesus is an insurmountable task.
Another common criterion is that of multiple attestation, which states that if an event or saying of Jesus is found in all four gospels, there is a good chance it actually happened; the lower the number of gospels, then the lower the probability of the event occurring. The most common example of the Seminar’s unwillingness to apply this consistently is in the case of the Resurrection, which does occur in all four gospels, but is still rejected as authentic. This extremely subjective science reveals that there is something much deeper here: the disregard of anything that does not fit with the Seminar’s assumptions including miracles and the raising of the dead. Strimple quoting Warfield said it best, “In the process of such criticism it is pure subjectivity which rules, and the investigator gets out as results only what he puts in as premises.”[8] All this is simply an attempt to humanize a Jesus that the gospel writers would say that we cannot because their eyewitness testimony will not allow us.
Moving specifically to John’s gospel, Luke Timothy Johnson makes an observation about the Seminar’s findings compared to other (even some liberal) scholars: the only way you find nothing significant in John’s gospel is if you approach it in the way the Seminar does.[9] The way the Seminar looked at John, besides having the preconceptions mentioned earlier, is only to look at the sayings of John and throw the baby (Jesus’ deeds) out with the bathwater (His words). Because John’s gospel does not present a peasant revolutionary, a Greco-Jewish philosopher, a magician, or any of these other caricatures that can emerge when one takes scissors to the Synoptics, the Seminar cannot possibly count its validity. Pate & Pate comment that this is a reason why the Seminar wants to treat the gospel of Thomas as a more accurate portrayal of Jesus than John; Thomas (and their redaction of the Synoptics) gives the Seminar fellows the Jesus they wanted to find-“an individualistic, pantheistic, moralistic, pluralistic, North American Jesus”.[10] This is evident when one reads the Twenty Theses the Seminar puts on its website.[11] Now that we have established what presumptions the Seminar fellows are using to judge John, we will now look for ourselves how the fourth gospel holds up against a more objective historical scholarly approach.
John’s Gospel
Most scholars date John’s gospel to have been dated within the A. D. 90s, still early enough that various eyewitnesses of the Resurrection would have been alive.[12] In addition, Carson & Moo argue that John’s use of countless references to the Old Testament (tabernacle, manna, Sabbath) points to a Jewish author, or at least one extremely familiar with Old Testament Scripture.[13] There have even been some who have argued, based on this and the clever intertwining of “Messiah” and “Son of God” in all their entirety in this gospel, that John is the “most Jewish” of all four.[14] This evidence challenges the notion that John’s gospel is anti-Semitic.
Another theme that is not as prevalent in John as the Synoptics is the kingdom of God. After having many classes with a member of the Jesus Seminar and reading some of John Dominic Crossan’s work, this idea is an overarching system in deciding Jesus’ authentic words and deeds. Sadly, the Seminar adds the misconstrued notion that Jesus preached the kingdom of God without Him thinking He was actually the king of it. In other words, John’s rejection is so because it does not answer the question, “What did Jesus do in the name of God’s Kingdom?” Again, this is based solely on presumptions, and if one looks at John’s historicity, a different picture emerges. Firstly, Carson & Moo point out that John is interested in the kingdom of God (Ch. 18-19).[15] Second, there are several parallels between John’s gospel and Mark’s (commonly believed to be the earliest gospel written.[16] It could even be argued that John is a commentary on Mark, expounding on its themes, including the high place of Peter and his reinstating into an apostle after Jesus’ resurrection.[17] Regardless, John still presents the same basic story line: Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, claimed to be the Messiah, declared the kingdom of God had come with His arrival, confronted Jewish and Roman authorities, was tried and crucified by these powers, and visibly arose on the third day. Looking within the gospels once more, there are some forty similarities between the passion narratives in Luke and John. Furthermore, John’s gospel is very geographically accurate, identifying the pool of Siloam, Jacob’s Well, and the Pool of Bethesda.[18] He is the only passion narrative to report both nails and the spear that pierced Jesus’ side, yet we know historically that nails were used as well as piercing with a spear was practiced, further adding doubt to the Seminar’s use of dissimilarity as a means to find fact.[19] Here it is plain to see that John is writing a historical narrative rather that some abstract philosophical fiction. More importantly, John is not writing about a completely different Jesus than the Synoptics. Jesus’ character, healings, teachings, death, and resurrection are still there. On the other hand, one can see theological truths stated plainly in John’s gospel. Rather than accept the Seminar’s implicit claim that John is on an entirely different wavelength, one can look back in the Synoptics to find that, while not always said out of Jesus own lips, their stories and parables point to Jesus’ divinity, and Craig Blomberg does an excellent job at showing this.[20]
How John is Different yet the Same
At the outset of this essay, it was noted that John’s gospel is different and (according to the Seminar) less reliable from the Synoptics in that it had Jesus engaging in long speeches rather than short parables. This argument at its premise is highly relative, for Jesus spoke in short, direct phrases in John’s gospel (5:1-15) and spoke in long speeches in both Matthew and Luke (Matt. Ch.10, 23, 24; Luke 10). Blomberg notes that John’s gospel is certainly more interpretive than the others.[21] This should not be surprising given John’s late date. John also admits his interpretive bias and the fact that he is writing his gospel in order that readers may come to believe that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31). What follows is an examination of some of Jesus’ seven sign miracles and the discourses that accompany them. If one is trying to answer the criticism that these miracles happened beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, it would be difficult since we cannot time travel back to observe them. However, this paper is trying to show that (contrary to the Jesus Seminar), John’s Jesus is not different from the other gospel’s.
Keep in mind that many miracles present in John’s gospel has parallels in the Synoptics. The point deserves re-emphasis: John does not portray another Jesus different from the other gospels. He writes about Jesus’ sign miracles and speeches to prove not only his premise in 1:1-18 but his original intention for writing his gospel, mentioned above. His point is clear: God is walking among His people in the man Jesus. He places these miracles in real places and real times (5:1-47; 6:1-71; 7:1-10:21). Kim states the Cana miracles in John 2-4 reveal Jesus as the Messiah and emphasize the importance of believing in Him to receive true life.[22] Jesus spells this out in His dialogues both with Nicodemus in John 3 and the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4.
Next are the miracles dealing in the context of the Jewish festivals in chapters 5-12. One of the main literary devices John is using here in framing his narrative this way is to show a common sad theme that runs throughout the Bible: the rejection of God by God’s own people. The festival stories show a growing opposition from the Jewish leaders toward Jesus (John 1:11).[23] However, within Jesus’ discourses in these chapters, there is a larger point to be grasped: Jesus is the only one who can fulfill the purpose, hopes, and joys of these festivals.[24]
Jesus’ third of these seven signs is the healing of the crippled man at Bethesda (5:1-17). Although the festival here is unnamed, some regard John to have done this deliberately to bring emphasis to his point: the healing took place on the Sabbath.[25] We can see another parallel in Mark 2:27-28, but the point is the same. Both the deeds and words of Jesus demonstrate that He, the Son of God, is Lord over the Sabbath. To answer their outrage of His claim to be equal with God, Jesus goes in depth at explaining who He is, what His purpose is, and who His witnesses are to assure them He is telling the truth. Another parallel here is the fact that Jesus healed physically to make a point spiritually. He has the power on earth to grant life and forgive sins, which is only the power of God alone. This is seen in Matt. 9: 1-8 which have the same thrust as Jesus’ words in John 5:24.
Next comes two more sign miracles in John: the feeding of the five thousand (6:1-15) and Jesus walking on water (6:16-21). These also take place near the time of a festival: Passover. This Passover festival was only one year before Jesus’ crucifixion so, if Jesus’ intent is now to prepare the disciples for His departure, a reader should not be surprised to find the lengthy discourses in John because Jesus’ intent is to teach.[26] It also meant that any miracle Jesus performed from this point forward was met with much opposition. Here, John is illustrating that Jesus is the ultimate Provider because all ate until all were satisfied (6:12). This is reminiscent of Psalm 23:1 in which the writer says that, with God, he lacks nothing. Sadly, those who ate and were satisfied did not grasp the significance of the miracle beyond the physical, and Jesus points this out to them, using it as a springboard to launch into another speech of who He is (6:26). Kim notes that first-century Jews thought the Messiah would bring Manna from heaven, as God had done through Moses, to mark the beginning of the new kingdom.[27] Jesus, however, uses this to show that He is the bread that comes down from heaven and offers eternal life; it is a physical revelation rather than just words.
Jesus walking on the water is the most private of John’s sign miracles, having been seen only by the disciples. This has somewhat of a Synoptic parallel of Jesus calming the storm. One simple lesson here is that Jesus is absolute Sovereign Lord over nature, reassuring the disciples’ doubts. Going deeper, the sea to the ancient near-eastern mind meant death, and Jesus is showing them that not only is He the source of all true life being the bread, but also that He is still more powerful over the most powerful and feared enemy of all: death. Kim explores this even further by saying that, just as Jesus was given little bread and multiplied its blessings because He is God, so He will multiply whatever the disciples give to Him in faith so that God will be glorified.[28] The disciples would also face hardship both before and after Jesus death that could lead to a sense of hopelessness and being a victim of circumstances. The walking on the water shows the disciples that God is still in control of their lives and, more importantly, the world around them so they can take comfort in the midst of persecution. These miracle signs are the ones which are followed by a long speech from Jesus. Furthermore, every single one of them has parallels in the Synoptics so again, we are not dealing with a different Jesus than the one in Matthew, Mark, or Luke.
Resurrection Historicity
The fact that John contains a resurrection narrative ought to lend credence for its validity because all four of the gospels mention elements of the resurrection story, several of Paul’s letters signify that the resurrection was a core doctrine of the early Christian church (1 Cor. 15) as well as extra-biblical secular sources, including Josephus and Tacitus, describing Jesus’ death and His followers being absolutely convinced of it. This has all led N.T. Wright to say, “The proposal that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead posses unrivaled power to explain the historical data at the heart of Christianity.[29] Lee Strobel reports several criteria that must be explained: the crucifixion, the belief of the disciples, the survival of the church, the conversion of Paul and James both to Christianity (especially since neither believed in Jesus before the resurrection), the empty tomb, and the fact that none of Jesus’ enemies were able to produce a body.[30] Although the Jesus Seminar has put several ideas forward, they are all based on one presupposition: miracles do not happen. However, none of their reasoning can account for all of these factors as much as the most probable explanation…Jesus is God who rose bodily from the dead. Although we will be examining John’s gospel specifically, to prove its validity takes the same method as proving the other gospels’ validity in regards to the resurrection.
Looking specifically at John’s account of the resurrection, there are several common elements between it and the gospels: the empty tomb, the fact the women found it as such, Peter and John’s role, and the post-resurrection appearances. Within the crucifixion/resurrection narrative, all four gospels report the same characteristics of Jesus as a suffering servant who comes willingly to die for a purpose: obedience to God and for the sake of others salvation.[31] Jesus had prophesied this in John’s entire gospel (10:18; 12:24; 15:13). The fact that John reports Mary being the first one to see the risen Lord would not have been very intelligent if he was trying to forge this account to make it seem more plausible. As is commonly known in historical circles, the testimony of women did not carry much weight back in the ancient world. Hence, looking through another criterion, embarrassment John had every logical reason to hide this fact from his readers, but he chose not to. This gives the probability that Mary’s encounter was fact and that Jesus had indeed rose. John also mentions Joseph of Arimathea begging for the body of Jesus. This is one example that William Lane Craig points out that do not carry any apologetic or theological development, promoting the idea it is a very early element of the story.[32] I would argue along with Craig that all the elements of the crucifixion/resurrection in John’s gospel match this characteristic, and none of them are legendary. While he does say that certain events on Good Friday and Easter Sunday fulfilled prophecy, there is no long, theological handling of any of the elements. It is written as a straight-forward narrative.
Additionally, John uses the same wording that Mark uses to describe that first Easter Sunday, “on the first day of the week” rather than, “on the third day” (John 20:1). Craig says that this precedes even the earliest Christian preaching that had formulated a creed to including that Christ rose “on the third day”. John uses this wording to be as objective as possible in reporting historical fact. N.T. Wright says further that, “The very strong historical probability is that, when Matthew, Luke, and John describe the rise Jesus, they are writing down very early oral tradition, representing three different ways in which the original astonished participants told the stories.”[33] He goes on further to say that, true to John’s writing style, he included details of the resurrection story: the grave clothes and the conversation between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.[34] The fact that Jesus was buried in grave clothes can be verified by looking at surrounding tradition as Craig does.[35] The implication here is clear: John is striving to add the details that are important for building a credible case for the resurrection. For good measure perhaps, John even includes the famous story of doubting Thomas into his narrative. Again, looking at the embarrassment factor, this would not have been beneficial in upholding the reputation of the apostles in the early church. Hence, there is a good probability that this is true because even a skeptic came to know the Lord. A final word from Wright will do well to encapsulate the point. The gospel of John is about new creation and new birth in Jesus, and John wants his readers to understand this by events set off in a literal description of a concrete set of events. Combine all of this evidence together and the picture emerges that John’s gospel is not only historically valid, but the teachings of Jesus are sound and in keeping with His character, and that the resurrection history is sound
I have heard it said by my own professor who was a member of the Seminar that all Jesus’ resurrection points to is the fact that his teachings lived on and, somehow the disciples proclaimed this as a form of resurrection. Again, looking at all four gospels, there are no cryptic passages when it comes to the resurrection so the authors will not allow any mythologizing to occur.[36] Especially looking at John 20’s epilogue once more, he is explicitly stating that only by believing in Jesus one has life, not simply following his teachings. The gospel of John should not be disregarded in the study of Jesus; in fact I personally believe that God inspired it to be the last gospel both chronologically and scripturally for a number of reasons. First John was traditionally believed to outlive the other apostles and died a natural death. He wanted to preserve the integrity of the gospel story even after many early followers had died (through there were many first and second generation followers still living). Second, John wanted to take the oral tradition as well as some early gospel records (not saying he had copies in front of him) and add his commentary and memories from having walked with Jesus for three years. He wanted to take Jesus’ deeds and give them fuller meaning by penning the speeches that came afterward. Third, he saw heresy beginning to creep into the church in the form of Gnosticism or even the commonly reoccurring heresy that it is knowledge or works-righteousness that saves a person. Perhaps the ethical teachings in the Synoptics had been emphasized so greatly as to allow this to happen. John fights back against this by always reminding readers of his gospel through various examples that it all comes down to having belief in Jesus. “For whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Finally, John lays it forth what following Jesus is really about and what He is really like. This is not a great moral teacher or stoic, but He is the Son of God who desires that all would come to know God through His death and resurrection. He also wants his followers to practice love and holiness. John sets out what Jesus is truly all about and why He has written what he has and, for any one reading the Bible today who have read them Matthew, Mark, Luke, then John, the final author is saying, “Here He is, now what are you going to do about Him in your life?”
[1] Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, & the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: What did Jesus Really Say? New York. Harper Collins Pub., 1993: pg. 412
[2] Ibid.,
[3] Strimple, Robert B. The Modern Search for the Real Jesus, Phillipsburg, N.J., P & R Publishing, 1995: pg. 7
[4] Ibid., pg. 115
[5] Ibid.,; Pate & Pate, Crucified in the Media: Finding the Real Jesus Amidst Today’s Headlines, Grand Rapids. Baker Books, Feb. 2005: pg. 27
[6] Pate & Pate, pg, 27
[7] Ibid., pg. 28
[8] Strimple, Robert pg. 10 qtd. Warfield, B.B. Person & Work of Christ, New Jersey, P & R Publishing, 1950: pg. 21
[9] Johnson, pg. 14
[10] Pg. 26
[11] http://westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/21Theses/21theses.html accessed 12/10/09
[12] Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 1998:pg. 41
[13] Carson, D. A. & Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 2005:Pg. 256
[14] Holding, James P. “The Authorship of John’s Gospel” Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry, http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.html accessed 12/09/09
[15] Carson & Moo, Pg. 252
[16] Look at Carson & Moo 258 for some examples
[17] Ibid.
[18] Strobel, The Case for Christ pg. 132-133
[19] Licona, Michael R. Paul Meets Mohammad: A Christian-Muslim Debate on the Resurrection, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 2006: pg. 56-57
[20] Strobel, The Case for Christ pg. 35
[21] Wilkins, Michael J. & J.P. Moreland, Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 1996:pg. 38
[22] Kim, Stephen S. “The Christological and Eschatological Significance of Jesus’ Miracle in John 5” Bibliotheca Sacra, 165 (October-December 2008): pg. 414
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid., pg. 415
[25] Ibid.,
[26] Kim, Stephen S. “The Christological and Eschatological Significance of Jesus’ Passover Signs in John 6”
Bibliotheca Sacra, 164 (July-September 2007): pg. 311
[27] Ibid., pg. 313
[28] Ibid., pg. 314-15
[29] Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. 2003: pg. 718
[30] Strobel Lee, The Case for the Real Jesus, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2009: pg. 113-124
[31] Johnson, L.T. The Real Jesus, New York, Harper Collins, 1996: pg 157
[32] Wilkins & Moreland, pg. 147
[33] Wright, pg. 611
[34] Ibid, pg. 664
[35] Wilkins & Moreland , pg. 147-148
[36] Wright, pg. 666